CCW Permit Holder Comes to the Aid of a Store Manager


PDA






woolfam
September 3, 2009, 03:20 PM
http://www.kmbc.com/news/20677451/detail.html

Bystander Not Charged In Shoplifter Shooting
Loucinda Carroll Accused Of Stealing Meat From Independence Grocery Store

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. -- The man who shot a suspected shoplifter in Independence won't face any charges, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Loucinda Carroll, 41, was arrested Saturday evening after a bystander shot her in the parking lot of an Independence grocery store.

Prosecutors said Carroll and a friend went to the Sunfresh store at 23rd Street and Sterling Avenue to steal meat. The manager saw it happening and followed them to a car in the parking lot, police said.

The manager tried writing down the license plate and yelled at them to stop and for someone to call police.

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.

William Miller was in the parking lot and saw it happen. He used his truck to block an exit and pulled out his handgun, repeatedly telling the driver to stop and get out, police said.

Police said Miller feared for his life and for the manager, and he fired a shot into the driver-side window. It hit Carroll in the shoulder and neck.

Carroll's son, Michael Barajas, said it wasn't right.

"He didn't even know what was going on. He just jumped out assuming. What if it had been the lady on the hood that was in the wrong? He would have shot the wrong lady," Barajas told KMBC's Marcus Moore. "He's not a police officer--he should have never done that."

Barajas admitted that his mother "put herself in a bad position."

He said he's thankful she's going to survive the gunshot wound, and he said he wishes she hadn't done what she's accused of.

"My mom should not have been stealing. However, I think this guy is very wrong for shooting her. His life was not in danger," Barajas said.

Miller has a valid concealed carry license from the state of Utah, which Missouri honors. Miller didn't want to comment on the incident.

The store manager also didn't want to talk.

The incident remains under investigation.

Jackson County Prosecutor Jim Kanatzer said there won't be any charges filed against Miller.

"You are entitled to defend yourself or someone else if you think that your life is in danger or that you are in danger of serious physical injury," Kanatzer told KMBC's Jim Flink. "You have to reasonably believe that either you or another individual is in danger of losing their life. This particular individual had all the reason to believe that based upon the facts he was observing."

Kanatzer said the law allows for reasonable self-defense if anyone's life is in danger. However, he urges caution.

Carroll will face theft charges when she is discharged from the hospital.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW Permit Holder Comes to the Aid of a Store Manager" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 03:26 PM
Score one for the good guys!

P95loser
September 3, 2009, 03:28 PM
What strikes me most about this is both the manager and the shooter made no comment on the matter. Perhaps this is the best course of action in today's times to avoid the negative press.

armoredman
September 3, 2009, 03:33 PM
"You shot my momma! OK, she shouldn't have been stealing, she shouldn't have been doing all those things, but you shoudn't have shot her!"
Egad. Well done to the Good Sam, who will have nightmares for years. The attacker should also be facing ADW charges with the use of a vehicle as a weapon.

kda
September 3, 2009, 03:36 PM
What strikes me most about this is both the manager and the shooter made no comment on the matter. Perhaps this is the best course of action in today's times to avoid the negative press.
I agree. If I find myself in a situation where I feel I must act, the last thing I want is to be quoted in the press.

Leanwolf
September 3, 2009, 03:42 PM
P95LOSER - " What strikes me most about this is both the manager and the shooter made no comment on the matter. Perhaps this is the best course of action in today's times to avoid the negative press."

You ain't kiddin'!!!

The last thing you want to do if you are involved a a self defense shooting is to go blabbing about it to the teeeveee cameras and pap dispensers.

"Hey, look, Buford, I'm on teeeveee!"

The two "good guys" did exactly the right thing. They kept their mouths shut when the pap dispensers came around.

L.W.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 03:47 PM
What kind of idiot runs into the parking lot after a shoplifter? The store manager stands to lose nothing at all if someone steals some meat. The company won't miss it. In fact he might be in trouble at his job because many retail stores and other establishments have a "No chase" policy etc.

And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked. If them and the manager did not run out after the shoplifter (who did nothing to them) everyone would be safe and sound today.

CCW is about saving yourself, family, or others from danger, not protecting some meat from the supermarket.

"You are entitled to defend yourself or someone else if you think that your life is in danger or that you are in danger of serious physical injury," Kanatzer told KMBC's Jim Flink. "You have to reasonably believe that either you or another individual is in danger of losing their life. This particular individual had all the reason to believe that based upon the facts he was observing."

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 03:54 PM
By the Dark Knight: And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked.

This is from the orginal story:

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.

Clearly, the perp was using deadly force against the manager (yes, Virginia, people can be killed by being run over by a car.) The manager clinging to the hood was in danger of death.

And the prosecutor agrees that the CCW holder was justified in acting to save the manager's life.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 03:58 PM
Clearly, the perp was using deadly force against the manager (yes, Virginia, people can be killed by being run over by a car.) The manager clinging to the hood was in danger of death.

And the prosecutor agrees that the CCW holder was justified in acting to save the manager's life.

And why did the person try to run the manager over? Cause GI Joe went running outside after, I can almost guarantee, less than $10 worth of meat that doesn't even belong to him. CCW is not about being a hero, looking for gunfights, if you can stay out a situation, stay out of it. Why put yourself in danger over a chase?

The manager is lucky all that person had was a car. What if the unarmed genius ran outside after the meat, and someone in the getaway car started shooting at them? What if he came running out and the shoplifter turned around and had a weapon on them?

The shooter, and manager, behaved recklessly in persuing a situation that neither of them had any business persuing. Let the dirtbag get away with $5 in meat, call the cops, fill out a statement, go on with life.

Deanimator
September 3, 2009, 04:02 PM
Clearly, the perp was using deadly force against the manager (yes, Virginia, people can be killed by being run over by a car.) The manager clinging to the hood was in danger of death.
Note the example of the NYC cops who riddled the guy leaving the bachelor party. He didn't even hit anybody with his vehicle, as I recall. Actually HITTING somebody is certainly no LESS deadly force. In most places, you're allowed to defend another who'd be allowed to defend themselves. That's exactly what the good samaritan did.

If you don't want to get shot, don't INTENTIONALLY hit somebody with your car while in the commission of another crime.

I've NEVER hit a pedestrian while I was in the act of stealing meat. Yeah, I know, I'm out of the mainstream...

subman47
September 3, 2009, 04:02 PM
+1 for vern

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 04:05 PM
The Dark Night said: And why did the person try to run the manager over?
How is that relevant? Surely you're not saying the perpetrator was justified in trying to run the manager over!!

The CCW holder saw an attempted murder -- when the perp struck the manager with the car. He saw a person (the manager) whose life was at risk due to the actions of the perp. He acted appropriately to save the manager's life.

And the prosecutor agrees.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 04:14 PM
Yeah, I'm totally justifying someone running someone else over. Yep.

What I'm saying is the manager and shooter behaved recklessly by getting themself into a deadly situation over a person who was stealing a few dollars worth of meat, posed no threat to either of them until they got to the car, and would have done no physical, monetary or emotional damage at all to either of them had they just let the dirtbag scram with the meat.

The shooter is justified for saving the manager from serious injury, but the manager behaved recklessly to put themselves in that situation at all. And the manager is lucky all that person had for a weapon was the car.

Answer me this.

Why did the manager chase after a person who was simply shoplifting some meat?

kdstrick
September 3, 2009, 04:15 PM
Hey Darkknight, it isn't about the stolen meat. It is about a felony in progress and a good Sam trying to save the life of a the manager.

Now, I'll agree with you that it is a bad idea to pursue a thief, and the manager made a poor decision to do so. I'll bet that she won't do that again.

Given that, the thief made a poor decision to first steal, then to attempt to run over the manager (which makes this a felony), it put the good Sam in a position to either allow the possible death or serious harm to the manager, or to act, and stop the felony in progress.

You may think the CCW holder was wrong, but what if the manager was your wife, mother, sister, etc... I bet you would feel differently. :)

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 04:19 PM
The CCW holder was justified in saving the manager. But the manager acted foolishly by chasing a shoplifter over a few bucks of meat that didn't even belong to them.

That's like sure, the fire department is great for pulling me out the 3rd story window of a burning building, but wouldn't you think I was stupid if I had ran into the burning building and up to the 3rd floor when I was already safe on the ground?

kdstrick
September 3, 2009, 04:19 PM
Yeah, I'm totally justifying someone running someone else over. Yep.

What I'm saying is the manager and shooter behaved recklessly by getting themself into a deadly situation over a person who was stealing a few dollars worth of meat, posed no threat to either of them until they got to the car, and would have done no physical, monetary or emotional damage at all to either of them had they just let the dirtbag scram with the meat.

The shooter is justified for saving the manager from serious injury, but the manager behaved recklessly to put themselves in that situation at all. And the manager is lucky all that person had for a weapon was the car.

Answer me this.

Why did the manager chase after a person who was simply shoplifting some meat?

Probably because the manager has pride in her job and took the theft as a personal affront. She wanted justice. It sounds like she was trying to write down the license plate number when she got struck by the perps car.

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 04:20 PM
The Dark Knight said:
And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked. If them and the manager did not run out after the shoplifter (who did nothing to them) everyone would be safe and sound today.
(My emphasis)

And then The Dark Knight said:

The shooter is justified for saving the manager from serious injury, but the manager behaved recklessly to put themselves in that situation at all. And the manager is lucky all that person had for a weapon was the car.
(Again my emphasis)

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

indiandave
September 3, 2009, 04:20 PM
Sad, but I bet the CCW guy and the store manager are both in for lawsuits. In these times doing the right thing can bankrupt you.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 04:21 PM
I will admit that my first post was incorrect, I misread the article and thought the CCWer went into the parking lot to help the store manager chase the shoplifter. I now see that the CCWer was in the lot and witnessed the event, so I don't think they should have their permit revoked and they are justified in shooting.

But the manager is still a complete fool. I'd love to know how much the meat was worth, and which multi-million dollar corporation he so foolishly chased the shoplifter for.

longdayjake
September 3, 2009, 04:27 PM
And why did the person try to run the manager over? Cause GI Joe went running outside after, I can almost guarantee, less than $10 worth of meat that doesn't even belong to him. CCW is not about being a hero, looking for gunfights, if you can stay out a situation, stay out of it. Why put yourself in danger over a chase?

The manager is lucky all that person had was a car. What if the unarmed genius ran outside after the meat, and someone in the getaway car started shooting at them? What if he came running out and the shoplifter turned around and had a weapon on them?

The shooter, and manager, behaved recklessly in persuing a situation that neither of them had any business persuing. Let the dirtbag get away with $5 in meat, call the cops, fill out a statement, go on with life.

This illustrates the fundamental difference between good people and dumb people. Good people try to make the world better. Dumb people just let others do whatever they want and hope that the government or the rich guy takes care of the problem.

In the real world when you let people get away with crime it only makes crime worse. No matter who the crime is committed against, it harms society as a whole to do nothing about it.

I lived in Brazil for 2 years and I saw how the people were afraid to do anything about crime. It starts with stealing but the more that criminals get away with something the bolder they get. Eventually they control the people with fear because they aren't afraid to murder because they know that no one will say anything out of fear of being murdered.

Though it is very dumb to stand in front of an escaping criminal in a car, (cars always win the pedestrian vs car battle) it is not dumb to try and stop a crime. Taking the license plate down was a good idea and telling them to stop and asking others to call the police is a good idea.

The Dark Knight,
Doing nothing at all is dumb and it makes me want to discredit anything that you say. Not only that but it kind of goes against what your name stands for.

Werewolf
September 3, 2009, 04:31 PM
Well done to the Good Sam, who will have nightmares for years.

Really? And why is that? He did nothing wrong. He has nothing to feel guilty about and the scumbag thief got off with little more than a shoulder wound.

Please - explain why this man will have nightmares for life?

danbrew
September 3, 2009, 04:39 PM
Yet the CCW guy did not know the circumstances at hand. It's super easy for us to read between the lines about what the CCW guy did or did not know. The CCW guy saw some lady in the parking lot get run over and cling to the roof of the car. How did he know this person was "a good guy (gal)"? He didn't. While most of us would agree that the guy getting run over is probably the good guy, I can think of a few reasons where he would be the bad guy.

The CCW guy isn't being charged because he's lucky. He's lucky that he was right and he's lucky the prosecutor has declined to file charges. He'll be lucky if the shoplifter doesn't sue.

As others have said (in this thread and in prior threads), my gun is staying safe unless it's me or mine at risk. Or I witness what I believe to be an imminent execution. That's it.

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 04:51 PM
How did he know this person was "a good guy (gal)"? He didn't.
He didn't have to. The issue is not the shoplifting. The issue is the perp's attempt to kill the manager by running over her.

The CCW holder could see the manager was not a threat to the perp. He saw the perp attempt to run her down. He saw her driving off with the injured manager clinging to the hood.

If the roles had been reversed -- if the manger had run down the perp and driven off with her clinging to the hood -- it would make no difference.

middy
September 3, 2009, 04:52 PM
How did he know this person was "a good guy (gal)"? He didn't. While most of us would agree that the guy getting run over is probably the good guy, I can think of a few reasons where he would be the bad guy.

Anyone in the position of the driver is the bad guy, no matter how it started, unless the person clinging to the hood is pointing a gun at them.

rainbowbob
September 3, 2009, 05:00 PM
I was put in a similar situation when two scruffy-looking dudes broke out in a fight right in front of me as I was walking through the Home Depot parking lot.

I had no idea who was doing what to whom or why.

When one of them broke away, got into his car, and put it in reverse - I realized I was inadvertently standing in his path and nearly got hit by his rear bumper. :eek:

I contend that jumping out of the way proved to be a better response than shooting him.

My weapon did NOT make an appearance.

As it turned out, the one left behind was a Home Depot employee (under-cover "loss prevention"). He said the other guy had stolen something.

I tried to contact the manager the next day to question their policy of employing an unidentified person to initiate what could have turned out to a deadly encounter in a parking lot full of customers in the name of "loss prevention".

I never got a reply.

I would have been pissed purple if I'd been injured and/or forced to injure another person over a box of wing-nuts.

I realize theft is a huge problem for business owners. They need to come up with solutions that DON'T include putting innocent customers and employees in harm's way.

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 05:09 PM
When one of them broke away, got into his car, and put it in reverse - I realized I was inadvertently standing in his path and nearly got hit by his rear bumper.

I contend that jumping out of the way proved to be a better response than shooting him.
The store manager in this case was apparently unable to jump out of the way. And with her clinging to a moving car, the CCW holder jumping over the moon would not have saved her.

She was in immanent danger of death or grevious bodily harm, and he acted appropriately to save her. His actions were vindicated when the prosecutor saw no chargeable offense in his behavior.

eatont9999
September 3, 2009, 05:11 PM
I have no sympathy for people who blatantly steal and get caught, but can't face the music. I do not feel sorry for that woman. I think not too many years ago, she would have been shot for the act of stealing, never mind aggravated vehicular manslaughter. I probably would have done something similar if I saw a woman being run down in the parking lot. I would most likely see jail time though being in the gun hating state of MA.

DHJenkins
September 3, 2009, 05:15 PM
But the manager is still a complete fool. I'd love to know how much the meat was worth, and which multi-million dollar corporation he so foolishly chased the shoplifter for.

So you believe it's OK to steal so long as it's under a certain value? What is that value exactly?

And what makes you think this wasn't a mom & pop operation?

Oh, and the manager was a she, not a he.

From the story, the manager wasn't trying to grab the person, they were simply trying to write down the license plate number. Maybe her eyesight wasn't good enough to do it from 100' away, or the layout of the building/parking lot dictated that she was very close to the car as soon as she walked out of the front door.

You need to look at the bigger picture. How long would it take that (or any) place to go out of business once word got around that you could simply walk out with whatever you wanted and nothing would happen?

eatont9999
September 3, 2009, 05:22 PM
Also,

Since neither victim commented on the events that took place in that parking lot, we do not know how much the man in the truck knew about the argument. We don't know how long it took either. Maybe he heard the manager yelling at the thief in her car, saw the manager get plowed over and then used his truck to block the assailant's exit. Maybe the woman threatened him or put him in some kind of danger as well.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 3, 2009, 05:27 PM
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would rather avoid a potentially fatal confrontation over a box of wing nuts or pork chops. Let the dirtbag have it!

Oh and to the guy saying this logic is contradictory to my name, no it is not. Batman would stop the commission of a crime, but the dark knight works alone (robin is not in the dark knight series) and does not take well to impostors and the like helping him. Batman would have stopped the thief from stealing, and told the manager never to try that hero garbage again.

Anyways I've said all I've need to said and no point rehashing post after post, I'm done with this thread and if I witness anyone stealing pork chops at the local supermarket this weekend I'll be sure to look away because it's none of my business.

WalkerCountyBoy
September 3, 2009, 05:45 PM
How bout we just let everyone get away, with what ever they want to and have no consequences. Sounds awesome to me! How do you not know if she owned the store herself, or had some invested in the store. So you would just someone steal from you and say hey its OK come again another day and do it again. If it was my store i would want everyone to know hey you steal from my store you better be ready to face the consequences.

WalkerCountyBoy
September 3, 2009, 05:47 PM
Yea thats what spiderman thought too, why should i stop this guy it has nothing to do with me, oh well guess what happened.......bangbangbang... Your grandpa is dead.

rainbowbob
September 3, 2009, 05:50 PM
...the CCW holder jumping over the moon would not have saved her.

Vern: I wasn't suggesting the Good Samaritan should have been jumping anywhere. I'm also not disagreeing with his actions once this mess was in motion

What I am suggesting is...

A: The store, and by extension the employee, should have a policy other than putting themselves and others in harm's way to apprehend petty thieves by chasing them down in the parking lot.

B: If the employee (or any one else) does attempt to get a plate number...DON'T stand in front of or behind the subject's vehicle.

C: DON'T attempt to stop a vehicle from moving by blocking it with your body (which is what I suspect the employee in this case was doing).

lt522
September 3, 2009, 05:51 PM
Are we reading the same post? The manager was not chasing them just following them out to get a tag number (which the police and most companies tell you to do) , then the suspects try to run the manager over and that's OK. Let's say for a minute that the CCWer did not get involved the vehicle while leaving the parking lot hit and killed or seriously injured your wife or child. Would you then say he did the right thing? Or would you say he should have done something , or brag about what you would have done. If you would not help another person who is about to be injured or killed by another maybe you need to leave your gun at home. Now we get to the point of the theft , since stealing is such a small offense don't call the police if someone steals your stuff or for that matter your car as I am sure you have insurance. Since we don't have Batman around , it falls to those of us who are tired of the killing , raping , and stealing , to help if we can. The CCWer deserves a metal not some arm chair quarter back second quessing what he had seconds to decide.

middy
September 3, 2009, 06:04 PM
Yea thats what spiderman thought too, why should i stop this guy it has nothing to do with me, oh well guess what happened.......bangbangbang... Your Uncle Ben is dead.

Fixed. :D

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 06:20 PM
What I am suggesting is...

A: The store, and by extension the employee, should have a policy other than putting themselves and others in harm's way to apprehend petty thieves by chasing them down in the parking lot.
That's not what the manager did, according to the story. She was trying to get the license number -- what any good citizen witnessing a crime should do.
B: If the employee (or any one else) does attempt to get a plate number...DON'T stand in front of or behind the subject's vehicle.
She probably wasn't directly in front of the car at first -- but cars have steering wheels.
C: DON'T attempt to stop a vehicle from moving by blocking it with your body (which is what I suspect the employee in this case was doing).
Where's the evidence she was doing that?

ming
September 3, 2009, 06:23 PM
Yeah, I'm totally justifying someone running someone else over. Yep.

What I'm saying is the manager and shooter behaved recklessly by getting themself into a deadly situation over a person who was stealing a few dollars worth of meat, posed no threat to either of them until they got to the car, and would have done no physical, monetary or emotional damage at all to either of them had they just let the dirtbag scram with the meat.

The shooter is justified for saving the manager from serious injury, but the manager behaved recklessly to put themselves in that situation at all. And the manager is lucky all that person had for a weapon was the car.

Answer me this.

Why did the manager chase after a person who was simply shoplifting some meat?
What was the manager supposed to do? Help her load it into her trunk?

middy
September 3, 2009, 06:56 PM
... if I witness anyone stealing pork chops at the local supermarket this weekend I'll be sure to look away because it's none of my business.

:barf:

Eightball
September 3, 2009, 07:20 PM
At least both the CCW permit holder and the manager were smart enough to say the right things, and nothing else (i.e. "life in danger, no further comment" type stuff).

Vern Humphrey
September 3, 2009, 07:33 PM
At least both the CCW permit holder and the manager were smart enough to say the right things, and nothing else (i.e. "life in danger, no further comment" type stuff).
As F. Lee Baily was wont to say, "Even a fish wouldn't get in trouble if he'd keep his damn' mouth shut."

Arkansas Paul
September 3, 2009, 08:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that when something happens during the commission of a crime, that everyone goes out of their way to defend the perpatrator and not the victim. It doesn't matter how much anything costs, what matters is that she was stealing. She was breaking the law. You may not want my opinion, but here it is. It's a pity the bullet didn't go through her skull. Then there would be one less thief to worry about.

TheWarhammer
September 3, 2009, 08:14 PM
Wow! It never ceases to amaze me, too, how many people will bend over backwards to defend the criminal while trying to place an much blame as possible on the victim. Apparently, even on gun forums, defending your rights, property, livelihood or even your neighbor's life is now passe.

Maybe "The Dark Knight" is right. Maybe it's just stupid to try to keep bad people from doing bad things. Maybe we should just stand by and let it happen. Maybe this whole thing really is the manager's fault for caring about her job, her company and her community. In fact, maybe the shop manager is at fault for having all that meat in the first place! If it hadn't been in the store, and the store hadn't been asking for money (the nerve!), then the poor, poor lady wouldn't have had to steal it and try to kill the manager with her car. Maybe we should come up with some sort of system by which nobody has more than anyone else and everybody is just given what they need. Maybe that system could take things from each as he is able to give and provide things to each as he has need. We could act as if we all live in a great big commune. And we could appoint overseers who would surely operate this system in a fair manner, with the people's best interests at heart, and never take undue benefit for themselves. Then we could work on making sure that everyone has free healthcare and then our leader could address our children on TV while they are in school...

eatont9999
September 3, 2009, 08:28 PM
What would have happened if the thief had a gun? Instead of trying to run the store manager over with her car, what if she just shot her in the face and walked away? If a person is capable of intentionally running down another person over some steak, then that person is capable of the cold-blooded murder of any one in their way. This crazy (xxxx) even brought her kid along for the ride. This woman should be locked up and mentally evaluated to see if she is even fit for society.

Cosmoline
September 3, 2009, 08:34 PM
What if it had been the lady on the hood that was in the wrong?

Well you roll your dice. If the store manager getting run down by the hoodlums had been in the wrong the shooter would be in hot water. But she wasn't.

rainbowbob
September 4, 2009, 05:31 AM
Wow! It never ceases to amaze me, too, how many people will bend over backwards to defend the criminal while trying to place an much blame as possible on the victim.


While I thoroughly enjoyed your diatribe, Warhammer, I must insist that no one here is blaming the victim OR her rescuer OR defending her assailant.


What would have happened if the thief had a gun? Instead of trying to run the store manager over with her car, what if she just shot her in the face and walked away?


The point (for me) is that you don't put employees and bystanders in harm's way to stop a shoplifter.

The employee was risking too much for too little by apparently standing in front of the assailants car and attempting to do what? Get her plate? Detain her?

I admire her grit and I understand the instinct to step in and do SOMETHING.

But civilization as we know it would not have collapsed and ushered in an era of world-wide communism had she alerted others in the area that a crime is in progress....called the police...and gave a description of the thief, the car, and and the plate - if she could do so without standing in front of the car or otherwise putting herself and other innocent folks at risk.

Going to the store for smokes and ending up shooting a shoplifter is not going make for a good night - no matter what the outcome is.

GojuBrian
September 4, 2009, 06:21 AM
I'd rather have a shoplifter with holes in them than some missing meat in my store.

"Evil will triumph when good men stand idle and do nothing."

I'm just not a 'do nothing' kind of guy. :)

benEzra
September 4, 2009, 09:16 AM
Why did the manager chase after a person who was simply shoplifting some meat?
From the original article:

Prosecutors said Carroll and a friend went to the Sunfresh store at 23rd Street and Sterling Avenue to steal meat. The manager saw it happening and followed them to a car in the parking lot, police said.

The manager tried writing down the license plate and yelled at them to stop and for someone to call police.

If trying to write down a plate number to give the police constitutes "playing G.I. Joe" then something is wrong, IMO. She wasn't trying to tackle the shoplifter, she was trying to be a good witness, and the shoplifter tried to kill her.

WLE
September 4, 2009, 09:17 AM
Why does it have to be a dollar amount, and what ever happen to morals and doing the right thing? Sounds like a case for another bed wetting trial lawyer.

rbernie
September 4, 2009, 09:20 AM
But civilization as we know it would not have collapsed and ushered in an era of world-wide communism had she alerted others in the area that a crime is in progress....called the police...and gave a description of the thief, the car, and and the plate - if she could do so without standing in front of the car or otherwise putting herself and other innocent folks at risk.
And this is quite possibly what she tried to do. Without knowing the layout of the parking lot or the words that were exchanged in the parking lot, we have no way of knowing exactly HOW the issue was escalated to the point where she was turned into a hood ornament.

Y'all are talking past each other a fair bit, and all the while speculating on the details without knowing them. That doesn't sound like a high quality dialogue to me.



Just sayin'....

Superlite27
September 4, 2009, 09:27 AM
If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a very merry Christmas.

I see it every time.......

"If this would have happened....."

"But, if that would have been the case...."

"If the CCW holder would have...."

"If the perp would have......."

THEY DIDN'T!

Only what happened, happened. "If" was nowhere to be found.

What happened is, a criminal tried to steal something. A manager tried to write down a licence plate, and eneded up almost being run over by the perp. A CCW holder removed the possibility of "if" even happening. Evidently, he was perfectly justified, or else HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED.

But, he wasn't. So there went that "if".

Life would be much more enjoyable if "if" didn't exist.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2009, 10:20 AM
Yeah. What if the shoplifter had been an alien Luncheater from the planet Zolgarsh and had been armed with a quantum-phase nuclear transmogrifier? And the store had been a front for smuggling Venusian smorfs?

Wouldn't that just change everything?:scrutiny:

chuckusaret
September 4, 2009, 10:54 AM
The shooter, and manager, behaved recklessly in persuing a situation that neither of them had any business persuing. Let the dirtbag get away with $5 in meat, call the cops, fill out a statement, go on with life.

This is your opinion and I would guess you have never been in a situation like the store manager and good guy were in. If no one attempts to stop the BG crime will continue to increase and you will not be able go on with life locked in you house and afraid to go out in public. Believe it or not we have many places in America where very large portions of the cities are controlled by the bad guys. How did this happen? The residents did not fight back.....Today you can read stories about "Night Out On Crime", "Crime Watch", and "COP (Citizens on patrol)" where the residents and business owners are attempting to take their neighborhoods back from the BG's. The City of Riviera Beach Florida has started such programs in an attempt to take back their city from the BG's. The state has a "Gang Task Force" that has greatly reduced gang related crime and in time will stamp out all gang crimes.

Store robberies , home invasions and muggings have been greatly reduced in my state, Florida, after new laws were recently enacted allowing people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

IMO, people with attitudes such as yours sends the wrong message to the bad guys. It is a proven fact in my area that the convenience stores that made no effort to stop shop lifting and grab and run crime, other than calling the police, were robbed more often. The stores that did stop or attempt to stop the BG's experienced fewer robberies. One store has had no attempts in the last 6 or 7 months since the shop owner shot and wounded a robber.

Home invasions were on the increase in all neighborhoods until the Castle Law was approved allowing you the right to defend yourself, family and property with deadly force. Home invasions are now seldom committed other than by gangs against other gangs.

I have had the experience of being robbed by an armed gunman and if I had not fought back I am sure I would have been killed. I have carried a CCW ever since.

Madcap_Magician
September 4, 2009, 10:59 AM
This issue seems pretty straightforward.

The CCW permit holder was in the parking lot when this happened. There was no way he could have known that the manager was trying to obtain a license plate number, or that the perpetrator had just stolen some groceries.

What he saw was someone trying to run down an unarmed person with a car.

That justifies the use of deadly force.

Moreover, he repeatedly told the driver to stop and get out of the car before shooting.

What's debatable about this?

rainbowbob
September 4, 2009, 03:26 PM
What's debatable about this?

Nothing.

What happened, happened.

The debate (and I think it's a useful one) has to do with the strategies and tactics WE might employ if faced with a similar situation - either as a store employee or an innocent bystander with a CCW.

Do we risk injury or the use of deadly force to stop a shoplifter?

Not me.

Do we risk injury or the use of deadly force when defending against criminal violence?

Absolutely.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2009, 03:33 PM
Do we risk injury or the use of deadly force to stop a shoplifter?

Not me.

Of course that's not what happened here. The CCW didn't know the perp was shoplifting. He only knew she was in the process of murdering another woman.

thorazine
September 4, 2009, 04:29 PM
And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked. If them and the manager did not run out after the shoplifter (who did nothing to them) everyone would be safe and sound today.

Did you not read the whole story?

The criminal shoplifter used her automobile as a weapon.

A very deadly weapon.

chuckusaret
September 4, 2009, 05:04 PM
And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked. If them and the manager did not run out after the shoplifter (who did nothing to them) everyone would be safe and sound today


The bad guy, who did nothing to them!!! The bad guy illegally took the stores products that are under the care of the employees, a crime no matter what the value was.

Madcap_Magician
September 4, 2009, 05:18 PM
The CCW carrier had no way of knowing that the bad guy had illegally taken the store's products. As far as he is aware, the theft is utterly irrelevant. He went to the defense of someone who any rational person would conclude was about to become the victim of vehicular homicide.

content
September 4, 2009, 05:47 PM
Hello friends and neighbors// Justifiable shooting ; shoplifter escalated crime after using car as weapon; should be charged accordingly .


To bad she will only be charged with shoplifting. That could present a problem for future involvement by CCW in this type of shooting.

Hope everything works out well for both good guys.

mgkdrgn
September 4, 2009, 05:54 PM
And the CCWer? Ok, so someone is stealing meat from the supermarket and they bust into action mode? Pulling a gun out over $4.95? This person should have their permit revoked.

CCW is about saving yourself, family, or others from danger, not protecting some meat from the supermarket.

"You are entitled to defend yourself or someone else if you think that your life is in danger or that you are in danger of serious physical injury," Kanatzer told KMBC's Jim Flink. "You have to reasonably believe that either you or another individual is in danger of losing their life. This particular individual had all the reason to believe that based upon the facts he was observing."

And your own quote above disproves your point.

The CCW holder wasn't shooting the suspect over some stolen meat. He was shooting her to prevent them from running over the store manager with their car; protecting the life of an innocent.

Good shoot.

tickfarm
September 4, 2009, 05:56 PM
The original offense started off as a stealing. but when the suspect used her automobile as a weapon it changed to an armed robbery. In the state of Mo. If force is used to prevent the owner of stolen property from recovering that property the offense then becomes a robbery. However since the offense occurred in Jackson County the suspect will probably only be charged with careless driving. Retired LE

Erik M
September 4, 2009, 07:45 PM
I worked in retail during my college years and was involved in alot of shoplifting incidents. One of our secret shoppers got a gun put in his face and then pistol whipped in the paring lot for trying to stop a guy from stealing a chainsaw. I decided that I wasnt about to get knifed for trying to tail someone stealing a dvd.


I know this is High Road and everyone agrees that the guy was justified in using his deadly force (pistol) against the womans deadly force (car). When I see these cases discussed I cant help but think that the ACLU and left wing DA's dont see it in the same light. There is no way that I would have fired my weapon.

mljdeckard
September 4, 2009, 08:38 PM
All of the security management and retail security classes I have taken say that your right to confront a shoplifter ends at the door. In THIS state, you are not allowed to use force to detain or pursue a fleeing shoplifter. (But I hear stories of store employees doing it all the time.)

I am one who is VERY leery of jumping in to defend third parties. I mean, the kid is actually right. How did the citizen know that the driver wasn't the victim? But I wasn't there, it may have been very obvious who was the victim and who was the criminal.

I DO NOT like the publicity this will bring Utah non-resident permit holders.

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
September 4, 2009, 08:46 PM
+1 on it ending at the door. At Home Depot our loss prevention associate/management WILL be terminated if they pursue someone out into the parking lot. To many people have been seriously injured trying to stop someone for a 20.00 socket set.

ghoster
September 4, 2009, 10:08 PM
hope a cupple of you arnt in the lot if someone tries to run me over.

thats part of the reason my steak costs dubble what it should, i gotta cover the cost of scum that steels theirs and nobody does anything.

the only nightmare he will have is the inevitable lawsuit that could have been avoided if he had shot a little higher.

to think its ok for someone to take your stuff and run over you with a car if you try to stop them is insaine. :banghead: yes it did belong to sombody.

exactly why he ccw's, only he used it for someone elses threat of life instead of his own. very big of him and rare in todays world.

he did what my pappy taught me was one of the first rules.
DO WHAT IS RIGHT

mljdeckard
September 4, 2009, 10:18 PM
It has probably already been said in this thread, if it wasn't, it's been said in many others like it.

I don't carry to protect you and your family. I carry to protect me and mine. My family won't be in good shape if I got to jail for negligent homicide or sued out of existence for wrongful death. If you start KILLING PEOPLE in defense of a third party. you better not be GUESSING what's going on. You must absolutely KNOW. If you come into the middle of a situation that is already going on, and you start shooting people, you are going to jail. I have a VERY short list of people in this world I will jump in to save. I have family members who are not on that list because they have a history of making bad life decisions. So, NO, I will absolutely not do that to save your life. Glad we understand each other.

If you don't like the price of beef, raise your own.

chuckusaret
September 6, 2009, 01:25 PM
+1 on it ending at the door. At Home Depot our loss prevention associate/management WILL be terminated if they pursue someone out into the parking lot. To many people have been seriously injured trying to stop someone for a 20.00 socket set.

And you just told the whole world that if you are a shoplifter go to Home Depot they won't go beyond the front door to stop you. But Home Depot will not attempt to reduce shoplifting by stopping the shoplifter but will raise the cost of their products to overcome their loses. Why? Because it is easier to raise the prices than to pay the legal costs to defend themselves in a possible law suite. IMO a slap to their customers face. Actually they need to save money to defend themselves on law suites from the injuries to customers by their employees that happen within the store .

mljdeckard
September 7, 2009, 01:55 AM
It's not like it was a secret to anyone who has worked retail for any chain store in America and actually read their LP policies.

Dihappy
September 7, 2009, 02:40 AM
Im in TOTAL agreement with Dark Night!

The shooter may be in the legal right, but ending someone's life over that incident is sad.

The facts, as reported, are that the idiot managaer ran after someone stealing MEAT!

He got hit and could have died.

The shooter didnt pull his gun till after she hit the manager and only shot after she refused his order to get out of the car.

Luckly hes a bad shot and she lived.

Dihappy
September 7, 2009, 02:54 AM
Some of you guys are riduculous. So just because some of us wouldnt chase down someone stealing meat, you think we want everyone to get away with anything?

What if the lady would have pulled a gun outside and shot the manager chasing her?

If someone steals meat, ill calmly walk outside and try to get a plate number. Hopefully that will aid the cops in making an apprehension.

I want to live, and to leave my family without a father or husband becuase im am trying to stop a shoplifter who may possibly have a gun is foolish.

Dr. Fresh
September 7, 2009, 03:47 AM
THE MANAGER WAS TRYING TO GET THE THEIF'S PLATE NUMBER.

Sorry to yell, but so very many of you seem to be having trouble grasping this concept. The manager was not chasing anyone.

CornCod
September 7, 2009, 04:15 AM
The CCW holder was morally justified in shooting the woman for attempting to harm the store employee. I appalud his action and the decision of the local authorities not to charge the CCW holder with any crime. However, I would not have taken the action that the permit holder did. Too much potential for being sued. I would not want to lose my house over it. I concede the permit holder is a better man than me.

rainbowbob
September 7, 2009, 03:55 PM
THE MANAGER WAS TRYING TO GET THE THIEF'S PLATE NUMBER.

Yes - and apparently standing in front of the shoplifter's car to do so, perhaps to block their escape.

A phenomenally BAD idea that could have got her injured or killed, and an otherwise uninvolved bystander having to deal with the aftermath of a shoot that need never have happened.

The point isn't to criticize the man who shot the violent assailant, or to blame the victim for that assailant's actions.

The point is to avoid - whenever possible - unnecessarily escalating a situation to that level in the first place.

mesinge2
September 7, 2009, 06:57 PM
He who does not punish evil commands it to be done

- Leonardo da Vinci

Deltaboy
September 7, 2009, 08:51 PM
She Got what she deserved CASE CLOSED

divenutt
September 7, 2009, 10:57 PM
How many of you were there when this happened? It's amazing to read the "responses" and the "what I wuld had did" tactics. Several posters seem to be coming up with very rigid arguments based on a very short article posted on the internet. And they seem very adamant about their viewpoint. It's fine to have a viewpoint and defend it, but please, at least take a few seconds and READ the article...especially the part where it says the manager was a WOMAN (that's where the "she" stuff fits into the story) and was trying to get the license plate number...not stop the car by standing in front of it. There is no mention of her standing there, why the need to assume random probabilities of what "might" have happened?

A 3rd party saw someone being injured (run over by a car would constitute injury for me) and felt that they were in danger. He chose to take action to prevent said injury and hopefully prevent that person's death. Isn't this one of the main reasons most people give for getting their CHL/CCW?

Or is it just so that they can come on internet forums and talk about all the Chuck Norris/Zombie killer/macho man crap that they would do "IF" this ever happened to them? Sorry, but I don't believe this was ever about stealing, GI Joe-ing, or Wild West action - a man believed that something wrong was about to happen and he chose to enter that situation and try to do something about it. I remember not too many years ago when he would have been chastised for not doing something...namely doing what is RIGHT.

(Thanks Dad for instilling that lesson early.)

mesinge2
September 7, 2009, 11:09 PM
+ 1 divenutt

HuntAndFish
September 7, 2009, 11:20 PM
@TDK - What the heck is wrong with the manager going into the parking lot to get the license number of the vehicle of a women who just stole from her store?

This is all on the woman who stole the meat and then attempted to run over the manager with her car. You are way off base here.

The manager tried writing down the license plate and yelled at them to stop and for someone to call police.

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.

rainbowbob
September 8, 2009, 04:22 AM
Thee CCW Samaritan absolutely did the right thing. The employee's attempt to stop a robbery and get the plate number was the right stuff.

BUT...

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.


This indicates to me that the employee was standing in front of the car. I've found myself in a similar situation as I mentioned (i.e., standing in the way of a car operated by a fleeing felon).

Her tactics, as mine, sucked.

The point of the discussion for me is just that - tactics.

Learning from the mistakes.

Is there any other way to learn?

9MMare
September 8, 2009, 05:24 AM
http://www.kmbc.com/news/20677451/detail.html

[B]
Police said Miller feared for his life and for the manager, and he fired a shot into the driver-side window. It hit Carroll in the shoulder and neck.

Carroll's son, Michael Barajas, said it wasn't right.

"He didn't even know what was going on. He just jumped out assuming. What if it had been the lady on the hood that was in the wrong? He would have shot the wrong lady," Barajas told KMBC's Marcus Moore. "He's not a police officer--he should have never done that."

Barajas admitted that his mother "put herself in a bad position."

He said he's thankful she's going to survive the gunshot wound, and he said he wishes she hadn't done what she's accused of.

"My mom should not have been stealing. However, I think this guy is very wrong for shooting her. His life was not in danger," Barajas said.

Her #%@$#% son doesnt even seem to recognize that his momma herself used deadly force. She didnt just steal something.

She tried to KILL the store mgr.

And yes, I see a lawsuit in the shooter's future (unless prohibited by state law) :-(

Anything he said to the press could be used in court...he was smart not to talk.

9MMare
September 8, 2009, 05:31 AM
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would rather avoid a potentially fatal confrontation over a box of wing nuts or pork chops.



Personally, I think it is the duty of anyone to be a good witness in a crime. That means remembering identifying characteristics, clothing, cars, getting license plate numbers, etc....without putting one's self in jeopardy.

The store mgr misjudged, yes. But I would have attempted to do the same thing...hopefully not by standing directly in front of the car.

Blakenzy
September 8, 2009, 05:40 AM
Oh man, I feel sorry for the good Samaritan. He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.

9MMare
September 8, 2009, 05:50 AM
And you just told the whole world that if you are a shoplifter go to Home Depot they won't go beyond the front door to stop you. But Home Depot will not attempt to reduce shoplifting by stopping the shoplifter but will raise the cost of their products to overcome their loses. Why? Because it is easier to raise the prices than to pay the legal costs to defend themselves in a possible law suite. IMO a slap to their customers face. Actually they need to save money to defend themselves on law suites from the injuries to customers by their employees that happen within the store .

Because stuff like this happens: About 6 yrs ago, at an Albertsons grocery here, employees called 911 and then chased a shoplifter into the parking lot. The woman got into her car, the cops came and chased her. She crashed and her baby, who was also in the car, was killed.

The store and the county were all held liable.

rbernie
September 8, 2009, 09:46 AM
He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.
Most examples of 'Castle Doctrine' (which is likely NOT in play in this case) include provisions for a civil liability shield if the shoot is criminally adjudicated to be justifiable.

danprkr
September 8, 2009, 09:58 AM
What strikes me most about this is both the manager and the shooter made no comment on the matter. Perhaps this is the best course of action in today's times to avoid the negative press.

In almost every situation. And, not only the press situation, but the legal aspect also. If you say something in the heat of the moment, and it becomes an issue at trial (civil or criminal) you're likely to wish you'd kept your mouth shut. Even if it is perfectly reasonable, an attorney can twist it with the proper questioning to make you look bad nearly everytime.

So, keep quiet - at least until all the legal BS is over. At which time you're old news and your opinion is no longer cared for. Stinks, but it's nearly impossible to use these situations to their full potential because of that, but there it is.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2009, 11:08 AM
He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.

He's SO not. As rbernie says, nearly all the "Castle Doctrines" have that in them.

Missouri law:

563.074. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

I would guess that there's not a lawyer in the state that would touch this case for the woman. It's almost a guaranteed loser.

http://www.learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html

Zach S
September 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
I'm no expert, but:

I think its a safe assumption that the person yelling "Call the cops!!!" is not the bad guy.

Therefore, I think its a safe assumption that somebody trying to run over that person is not a good guy.

The Good Samaritan didn't know anything beyond that. Considering the BG tried to run over the GG, I wouldn't have assumed the BG was (previously) non-violent.

Clearly, the perp was using deadly force against the manager (yes, Virginia, people can be killed by being run over by a car.)
And even if it dont kill ya, or even break any bones, it still hurts like hell...

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW Permit Holder Comes to the Aid of a Store Manager" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!